Read A book mentioned below to know as to what kind of Filthy Language Mawlana Mawdudi and his brother Khomeini used against Prophets [PBUT] and against the Companions [May Allah be pleased with everyone of them] of Prophet Mohammad [PBUH]. The book has provided the original quotes from Mawdudi’s book with the editions and page number. Mudodi Khumeni do bhai, Moudoodi and Khumeni(shia) two Brothers http://www.scribd.com/doc/15702018/Mudodi-Khumeni-do-bhai-Moudoodi-and-Khumenishia-two-Brothers-a-deep-researc-book-by-Deoband-Ahlesunnat-wal-jamat
For example Khomeini once made a statement which was published in the Tehran times (Kitaab be Noujawanaan - P8) that if he conquers Madina Munawwarah, he will remove the two idols (Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) besides Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him). I am certain that no believer will accept such a statement against the great luminaries of Islam. Brother Amin, are we then to condemn only Khomeini and condone Mawdudi knowing well that Mawdudi was a close friend of Khomeini and was sympathetic to his course. In a book titled, 'Two brothers - Maududi and Khomeini' page 129, the following statement of Dr Ahmad Farouk Maududi (son of Abul-A'ala Maududi) was published in Roz Naame, Lahore - 29 September 1979, "Allama Khomeini had a very old and close relationship with Abba Jaan (father). Aayaatullah Khomeini translated his (fathers) books in Farsi and included it as a subject in Qum. Allama Khomeini met my father in 1963 during Hajj and my father's wish was to create a revolutionary in Pakistan similar to Iran. He was concerned about the success of the Iranian revolution till his last breath.'
Eroth Mohamed wrote:
"Maudoodi was probably one of the first to float the idea of Islamic Revolution. Sayyid Qutb became the first major thinker to infuse more vigor to the idea, and add a global dimension to Muslim political thought. Imam Khomeini completed the process by achieving the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. - By Dr Kalim Siddiqui
==================================================
kaukab siddique wrote:
Maulana Maudoodi and Indian Muslims a brief note by Kaukab Siddique
Syed Abul 'Ala Maudoodi was undoubtedly among the greatest Islamic scholars of the 20th century
Maudoodi: According to Kepel
http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/02/maudoodi-kepel.html
===============================================
Dear Kaukab Sahab,
No offence but Maulana Mawdoodi [Founder of Deviant Jamat-e-Islami] was nothing but only a popular journalist who used to work with apostate like Allama Niaz Fathehpuri [Famous Indian Thinker]. These deviant thinkers like Syed Qutub, Hasan Al Bannah, Taha Hussain, Rashid Razaq, Khumeini and Mawdoodi through their rampant pen had repeatedly insulted the Prophets [PBUT] and Companions [May Allah be pleased with every single one of them] of the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] through the False and Very Doubt references compiled by Tabari who quoted Liars like Waqdi, Kalbi and Abu Mukhnif.
Two months ago you had started a thread on the Importance of Hadith and through a Hadith the Scholars above deserve Curse of Allaah and Curse of Allah on all those who follow the so-called Scholars you mentioned above but let me tell you why.
Below are the references which are often quoted by Shias and some Sunnis too to use bad words against Hazrat Ameer Muawiya [May Allah be pleased with him]. Read the quote and then read as to how Tabari has collected the references below and how unreliable Imam Tabari is! Those who are 'worried' about the Fate [Hashar] of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya [May Allah be pleased with him] should worry about their faith [Imaan and Islam because their faith is in danger due to undue discussions on the status of Hazrat Ameer Muawiya]
1) Syed Abul 'Ala Mawdudi in, Khilafat o Mulukiyat, states:
"One more dis-liked innovation (bid'at) that reigned in the time of Hadhrat Muawiya [ra], that he himself (khud), and by his orders all (tamam) his governers, in their sermons (khutboon) through the pulpit reviled and insulted (sab o shatm) Hadhrat Ali [ra]. Even yet, in the mosque of the Prophet (S), through the pulpit (minbar) before the rawdah e nabawi, the dearest of the Prophet's (S) relatives were villified (gal'ian) and Hadhrat Ali's (ra) children and the nearest of his kin bore witness to these villifications (gali'an)."
The references from Mawdudi are to al Tabari, Tarikh, v4, p188, Ibn al Athir, al Kamil, v3, v4, p154, Ibn Kathir, al Bidaya, v8, p259, v9, p80.
2) Al Tabari writes in his work on history, they were,
"al Hasan had already made peace with Muawiyah on condition that he concede to him what was in his treasury plus the revenue of Darabjird and that 'Ali not be reviled in his hearing." (The History of al Tabari, Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Muawiyah, Section: The Rendering of Allegiance to al Hasan b. Ali).
3) "Marwan the architect of Umayyad dynastic rule, clearly recognized the importance of cursing as a tool of the government. He told 'Ali's grandson Ali b. al Husayn privately: 'No one [among the Islamic nobility] was more temperate (akaff) towards our master than your master'. The harmless son of al Husayn asked him: 'Why do you curse him then from the pulpits? 'He answered: 'Our reign would not be sound without that (la yastaqimu l-amru illa bi-dhalik)". (Baladhuri, AnsabII, 184-5 and ; Ibn Asakir, 'Ali, III, 98-9).
4) "Particularly useful for Muawiyas purpose was the public cursing of Ali in Kufa where he hoped it would bring out into the open the latent opposition of the Umayyad rule, thus facilitating his measures of repression. When he appointed al Mughira b Shuba governer of Kufa in Jumada 41/September-October 661, he instructed him: 'Never desist from abusing and censuring 'Ali, from praying for God's mercy and forgiveness for Uthman from disgracing the followers of Ali, from removing them and refusing to listen to them, and never cease praising the partisans of Uthman, may God be pleased with him, bringing them close to you and listening to them". (Tabari, II, 112).
“UNQUOTE”
Tafsir al-tabari and Tarikh al-tabari(history compiled by Tabari) are just a bunch of reports that Imam Tabari has complied. He says in the beginning of the books(either both or one of them) that he has just merely compiled all the reports that have cone to him, and that he will leave it up to future scholars to decide which ones are authentic.
Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. "
Laymen like us looking through Tabari is the worst thing in the world. Tabari is not for people like us. The orientalists translated the entire Tarikh Tabari, and now, any non muslims goes and looks in it and thinks that it is authentic. Imam Tabari just collected everything that came to him and he said that he will leave it up to future muhaditheen [Traditionalists] to look for the authenticity of the reports.
Why Tabari is important for Shias?
It is a lie that Mu’awiyah ordered to insult Ali from the pulpits. There is no rightful or clear evidence about that. Mu’awiya’s biography and manners refuses this accusation. What some of the historians mention about that has no value because when these historians present these words about Mu’awiyah, they do not differentiate between true or false stories? In addition, most of these historians are Shia. But some of the Historians narrated in their books sound stories and false stories, but they are excused when they attributed these stories to their narrators so that we could judge these stories, whether to accept them or reject them. Among these historians is Al-Tabari, who lived in a time of Shia’s growing power. Al-Tabari says in the introduction to his history: “Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time, is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it, or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told.”
[Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13]
Abu Makhnaf narrates this story. Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot bin Yahaya Al-Azday Al-Koufay [Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.232, and year of 51H]. Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar said about him: “Ekhbaray Talif” (This is a phrase for the Scholars of hadeeth. Ekhbaray is the person who narrates stories, and talif is the one who lies when he narrates stories) [ Meezan Al-E’tidal by Al-Thahabi, vol.3, p.419 #6992 and Lisan Al-Meezan by Ibn Hajar, vol.4, p.492] Abu Hatim and others did not take him, and Al-Darqutnay said: “He is weak,” Ibn Mu’een said: “Not a trustworthy,” Marrah said: “He is nothing,” and Ibn Uday said: “A burned Shia!”) [Meezan Al-E’tidal, vol.3, p.419-420] and Al-Aqeelay accounted him as a weak [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeelay, vol.4, p.18-19 #1572]. Therefore, this story is false and hence is not an argument.
Tareekh at-Tabari was a voluminous text compiled by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (may Allah be pleased with him). Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.
Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted this–not even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them. If the compiler of the book does not view all of the narrations as authentic, then it is indeed absurd for the Shia
to assume that we accept each and every single narration in Tareekh at-Tabari. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:
I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes.
This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.
(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)
Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.
The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni, i.e. “Thiqat al-Islam”. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam at-Tabari’s book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulayni’s book. In Al-Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk when we say that not every narration in Imam at-Tabari’s book is authentic?
What we have stated above applies to books written by Islamic historians in general; as for Imam at-Tabari in particular, then it should be known that he was specifically criticized for his over-reliance on weak and unauthentic narrators. Imam at-Tabari wished to create a well-balanced book, which would contain both Sunni and Shia narrations. He felt that his book would be incomplete if he only included one side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, Imam at-Tabari used so many Shia narrators and included so many Shia narrations that he was accused of being a Shia Rafidhi. Furthermore, the rumors that Imam at-Tabari did not recognize the jurisprudential superiority of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal further fueled the discontent towards Imam at-Tabari amongst the ranks of the Sunni orthodoxy. The Hanbalis–whom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding fathers of the “Wahabis”–rioted outside Imam at-Tabari’s home in protest.
Franz Rosenthal of Yale University writes:
He [Tabari] was denounced by Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawood to the influential chamberlain of al-Muqtadir, Nas al-Qushoori. He [Tabari] was accused of Jahmite inclinations and extremist [Shia] Rafidhi views and was forced to issue a denial…[of the] general accusations of dogmatic heresy and extremist Shi’ah sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the Hanbalites…They [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shi’ah extremist and, ultimately, a heretic…Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.
(Franz Rosenthal, General Introduction to “The History of al-Tabari”)
According to some sources, Imam at-Tabari issued a formal apology to the Hanbalis before his death; we read:
Tabari secluded himself in his house and produced his well-known book containing his apology to the Hanbalis. He mentioned his own legal views and dogmatic beliefs. He declared unreliable those who thought differently about him with respect to those matters…He extolled Ahmad ibn Hanbal and mentioned his legal views and dogmatic beliefs as being correct. He continued to refer to him constantly until he died.
(Irshad, Vol.6, p.437)
Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Tareekh at-Tabari would contain some narrations that the Shia would use against us; this was a consequence of Imam at-Tabari’s decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam at-Tabari that he was a Shia Rafidhi were one hundred percent incorrect; there is no doubt that Imam at-Tabari was a very respectable Imam of the Sunnis. He merely included Shia narrations/narrators based on the tradition of Islamic historians to simply compile Hadiths and to leave the authenticating to the Muhaditheen. So while we do not question the “Sunni-ness” of Imam at-Tabari, we bring up the point that people accused him of being a Shia Rafidhi to prove that the narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were never accepted by the mainstream Muslims as being one hundred percent authentic, and whoever would claim such a thing is a liar. The Shia narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were rejected back then, as they are now.
Not only did Imam at-Tabari include Shia narrations in his book, but he also included Christian and Zoroastrian accounts. This was in line with his belief of compiling a “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a variety of segments of the society. It is for this reason that some of the narrations in his book with regards to the story of Creation are not in line with the Islamic belief. Indeed, as we have stated repeatedly, not all the narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari can be accepted.
The Shia are allied with the other enemies of Islam when they use weak narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari in order to attack the mainstream Muslims. It was, after all, Salman Rushdie who used a narration in Tareekh at-Tabari to prove the story of the “Satanic verses.” And yet, we know that even though this narration is found in Tareekh at-Tabari, it is unauthentic as mentioned by Ibn Katheer and others. The methodology the Shia use to attack the mainstream Muslims is very similar to that employed by the apostates and avowed enemies of Islam. If the Shia propagandist would mock us when we doubt the authenticity of Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us mock them when they doubt the authenticity of their most authentic book of Hadith (i.e. Al-Kafi). If they insist that we accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari, then we insist that they accept every narration in Al-Kafi, that book which is full of Shirk, Kufr, and utter blasphemy. If they seek to weaken the Sunni position by bringing up narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us respond by toppling the Shia position by bringing up narrations in Al-Kafi.
To conclude, we say as Ibn Katheer said:
In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.
(Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)
Dear Dr Kaukab Sahab,
On one hand you say Hadith is important but then deny yourself by quoting deviant like Mawdoodi despite knowing the Hadith that whoever insult the companion of the Porphet Mohamma [PBUH]
Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] "Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people" [Saheeh, At-Tabaranee].
Hadith Reject Mawdoodi's False History:
Virtues of Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufiyan [May Allah be pleased with him]
1- "Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Messenger used to visit Umm Haram bint Milhan and she was the wife of Ubada bin As-Samit. One day the prophet peace be upon him visited her and she provided him with food and started looking for lice in his head. The Allah's Messenger peace be upon him slept and afterwards woke up smiling. Umm Haram asked, " what makes you smile, O Allah's Messenger? He said, " Some of my followers were presented before me in my dream as fighters in Allah's Cause, sailing in the middle of the seas like kings on the thrones or like kings sittings on their thrones. Umm Haram added, " I said, " O Allah's Messenger ! Invoke Allah, to make me one of them, ' So Allah's Messenger invoked Allah for her and then laid his head down ( and slept ). The he woke up smiling (again). (Umm Haram added I said, " what makes you smile, O Allah's Messenger?" He said, " Some people of my followers were presented before me ( in a dream) as fighters in Allah's Cause". He said the same as he had said before. I said, ' O Allah's Messenger ! Invoke Allah to make me from them." He said, " You are among the first ones." Then Umm Haram sailed over the sea during the caliphate of Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan, and she fell down from her riding animal after coming ashore, and died." [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Kitab Al-Jihad]
2- "Abu Bakrah [May Allah be pleased with him] related that he heard the Messenger of Allah [Peace be upon him] say while Hasan Bin Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was beside him on the pulpit, 'This son of mine is a leader, and through him, Allah will bring together two huge groups of Muslims.'" [Bukhari]
3- The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] said, “Oh Allah, make him [Mu’awiyah] a guide, guided, and guide people through him.” [Al-Tirmidhi and Mishkat Al-Masabeeh]
4- The Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] said, “O’ Allah, teach Mu’awiyah the Quran and math, and save him from the hellfire.” [Mawarid Al-Dam’an, by Al-Haythami]
Narrated Ibn Abu Mulaika:
5- Muawiya offered one Rak'a Witr prayer after the 'Isha prayer, and at that time a freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas was present. He (i.e. the slave) went to Ibn 'Abbas (and told him that Muawiya offered one Rak'a Witr prayer). Ibn Abbas said, "Leave him, for he was in the company of Allah's aostle." [Sahih Bukhari]
Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
6- Somebody said to Ibn 'Abbas, "Can you speak to the chief of the believers Muwaiya, as he does not pray except one Rak'a as Witr?" Ibn 'Abbas replied, "He is a Faqih (i.e. a learned man who can give religious verdicts) ."[Saheeh Bukhari]
7- Imam Ahmad reports with an authentic chain from Ali ibn abi Hamla who heard his father saying: "I saw Muawiyah in Damascus standing on the pulpit and delivering a sermon to the people while his clothes had patches."[Musnad Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal]
8- Ibn Katheer reported from Yunus ibn Maiysar az Zahid who stated: "I saw Muawiyah in the market of Damascus and he was walking in the streets of the city with a shirt having patch.[Al Bidaya Wan Nihaya]
Narrations that show muawiya guided others:
9- Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
When Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan came to Medina for the last time, he delivered a sermon before us. He took out a tuft of hair and said, "I never thought that someone other than the Jews would do such a thing (i.e. use false hair). The Prophet named such a practice, 'Az-Zur' (i.e. falsehood)," meaning the use of false hair. [Sahih Bukhari]
10- Narrated Humran bin Abbas:
Muawiya said (to the people), "You offer a prayer which we, who were the companions of the Prophet never saw the Prophet offering, and he forbade its offering," i.e. the two Rakat after the compulsory 'Asr prayer.[Sahih Bukhari]
11- Abi Mujliz reported: "Muawiyah went to Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Abi Amir, when he reached there abi amir stood up out of respect to muawiya whereas abdulla ibn zubayr remained sitting. Muawiya then said to abi Amir:"sit down for i have heard the Apostle of Allah(saw) saying:"that person who likes to see others stand up for him, then let him occupy his seat in hell fire."[Sunan Abu Dawoud]
No comments:
Post a Comment